green party green plan: our greenprint for the future

GP2Green Plan

Green Party

Our Greenprint for the Future

Green Party GP2 Green Plan

Visit us online: www.greenparty.ca �

The Green Party of Canada plan for a sustainable future grounded in fiscal responsibility, ecological sanity and social justice is set out in its policies and in its 2006 federal election platform.

As the only party working within a triple bottom line – economic, ecological and social –approach to every policy, our position on key environmental issues is clear. Nevertheless, with the federal government’s “Green Plan 2” expected soon and recent Kyoto approaches set out by various Liberal leadership candidates, the Green Party of Canada is releasing its own Green Plan.

The Green Party is committed to supporting other political parties who put forward substantial measures to improve environmental health, reducing health threats to our children and other vulnerable members of society – pregnant women, the unborn, the elderly, the sick and the poor – while averting global crises, particularly increasing climatic instability caused by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Looking back at the first “Green Plan,” brought forward by then-environment minister Jean Charest, much that was good has been lost through budget cut-backs and neglect.

For example, the cancellation of the State of Environment report, launched by the Mulroney government and cancelled by the Chrétien government, has eliminated an important source of information needed to guide policy. This report relied on solid data collection, much of which has also been cancelled, to pull together an authoritative, publicly accessible assessment of Canada’s progress in meeting environmental indicators. Alberta commentator Andrew Nikiforuk said scrapping it was like a blind man selling his guide dog as a cost-cutting measure.

That said, the Mulroney Green Plan looks good in retrospect only because of the poor performance of governments since. The reality is that the first Green Plan was more a fund than a plan.

The Canadian government must set real targets with measurable objectives and put in place the resources to deliver on those goals. Recent history clearly demonstrates that purely voluntary efforts do not work. Recent history also shows that policies must be consistently applied. For example, it is not possible to reduce greenhouse gases while providing massive subsidies to expand production of the planet’s most carbon-intensive fuel – crude oil from the Athabasca tar sands.

Using the previous Green Plan as a guide, the following areas require urgent attention and resources. Please note that other Green Plan 1 programmes, such as the Model Forest Programme, are worthwhile and should receive continued support. At this point, however, the most urgent issues are those covered in detail in the Green Party Green Plan – GP2 .

“The Canadian government must set real targets with measurable objectives and put in place the resources to deliver on those goals.”



1) Kyoto Protocol: Implement tax-shifting (ecological fiscal reform), while regulating to improve vehicle fuel economy, improve energy productivity in large appliances, expand programmes for renewable energy, remove perverse energy subsidies and, in cooperation with provinces and territories, improve energy efficiency of residential and commercial buildings.

2) Adaptation to Climate Change: Develop pro-active adaptation strategies for vulnerable residential areas (floodplains, settlements on perma-frost, etc), and for economic sectors particularly dependent on stable climatic conditions: tourism, agriculture, forestry and fishing.

3) Air Quality: Establish regulations to reduce exposure to toxic contaminants. No need for new legislation. Use The Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

4) Toxic Chemicals: Regulate within the Canadian Environmental Protection Act

5) Water Quality and Quantity: Implement the 1987 Federal Water Policy. Pass legislation at the federal level to prohibit bulk water exports.

6) National Parks: Re-commit to the completion of the National Parks system, including its Marine Parks.

7) Science: Reverse the “brain drain” in federal scientific capacity.



1. Kyoto Protocol: Implement tax-shifting (ecological fiscal reform), while regulating to improve vehicle fuel economy, improve energy efficiency in large appliances, expand programmes for renewable energy, remove perverse energy subsidies and, in cooperation with provinces and territories, improve energy efficiency of residential and commercial buildings.

There is no longer any doubt that the climate crisis is real and that action is long overdue. As Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, said in New York recently, “Our climate is becoming more unstable. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.” She went on to quote Professor John Holdren, the newly elected president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, who summed up the current scientific consensus like this: “We are not talking any more about what climate models say might happen in the future. We are experiencing dangerous human disruption of the global climate and we are going to experience more.”

It is essential that Canada meet its legally binding obligation under the Kyoto Protocol. It remains entirely possible to meet that commitment.

“It makes sense to end subsidies to the wealthiest companies on earth to make the world’s most profitable product - a barrel of oil.”



Table 1. Canada’s main sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.1,� ,� ,�

SourCe % of national emissions (2004)

% change in emissions (1990–2004)

Industrial facilities 5�.5 �0Electricity generation 16.9 �5Oil and gas production, transmission and distribution �0.� 50Other industrial facilities 16.� 6Transportation ��.9 �7Passenger cars and trucks a9.9 b15Freight trucks a7.� b60Railways 0.8 -1�Aviation (domestic) 1.0 ��Other transportation (off-road, marine, buses etc.) a5.1 b�6Buildings 10.7 16Residential buildings 5.7 -�Commercial buildings 5.0 �7Agriculture (apart from energy use) 7.� ��Landfills �.6 17Other 0.6Federal government operationsc 0.� -��Total �7

a Data for 2003 , b Change 1990–2003 , c These emissions have already been counted once in the preceding sources.

The Green Party notes that Canada’s first phase target under Kyoto, a 6% reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels to be achieved between 2008 and 2012, is just that – a FIRST phase. Negotiations launched in Montreal at the 2005 COP11 meeting within the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the first Meeting of the Parties under the Kyoto Protocol are geared to ensure the negotiation and ratification of a new round of mandated cuts in sufficient time to ensure a seamless transition to the next phase of deeper reductions post 2012.

As the world cities conference in Montreal noted, climate science is increasingly pointing to the need for emissions cuts by industrialized countries of the order of 30% by 2020 working towards 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 if the world is to avoid critical “tipping points” in the global climatic system. Abrupt climatic change is increasingly likely if we fail to hold concentrations below 400-425 parts per million (ppm). The pre-Industrial Revolution concentration was 275 ppm. We are currently nearly 30% above the highest level recorded in the last 800,000 years at over 380 ppm. With current emission rates from burning fossil fuels, accompanied with land use changes in removing forests, we are adding approximately 2 ppm per year to global concentrations. This rate of increase is 60 times faster than anything seen in prehistory.5

1 Environment Canada. 2006. National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada 1990–2004, p.xxii, 494, 507.2 Natural Resources Canada. 2005. Energy Use Data Handbook, 1990 and 1997 to 2003, p.99, http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/data_e/

handbook05/Datahandbook2005.pdf.3 Government of Canada. 2005. Federal House in Order — Annual Report on Emissions Reductions From Federal Operations, p.11, http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/

Publications/statistics/fhio04/pdf/fhio2004.pdf.4 All data has been derived from the National Inventory Report, except for the cars and trucks data which has been derived from the Energy Use Data

Handbook, and the federal government operations data, derived from the Federal House in Order report.5 http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm



The global atmosphere does not turn on a dime. Lag times are significant. The Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that if humanity were to reduce GHG emissions by 60% immediately, the planet’s temperature would continue to rise for over a century and it would take approximately 1,000 years for the sea level rise triggered by existing emissions to come to a halt.

It is imperative that Canada meet its 2008-2012 Kyoto target with policies and initiatives designed to boost further emission reductions as well as assisting developing countries to do the same. Any other course is an act of irresponsibility that – remembering that Kyoto is law – can only be described as criminal.



POLICY COMMITMENT: The Green Party as government will meet and beat the 2008-2012 Kyoto target.

To meet the Kyoto target, the Green Party endorses the recommendations of conservative economic voices, such The Economist and the C.D. Howe Institute.6

According to an editorial in The Economist, September 9, �006: “Ideally, politicians would choose the more efficient carbon tax, which implies a relatively stable price that producers can build into their investment plans.”

The aggressive model put forward by the C.D. Howe Institute through the research of Jaccard et al, would nearly deliver the Kyoto commitment. It included:

• Large Industry Emission Cap and Tradable Permit system;• Renewable Portfolio Standard;• Vehicle Emission Standard;• Carbon sequestration requirement; and• Building and Equipment Standards.

Both have embraced the foundation of Green Party policy and platform: tax shifting. The Green Party will reduce taxes in areas such as payroll and income, while putting in place a graduated levy that places the heaviest fossil fuel tax on the fuel with the highest GHG – coal – graduated downwards to the fuel with the lowest – natural gas. This follows the approach taken recently by the Quebec government. Unlike the Quebec government, however, the Green Party will support industries passing such costs on to the consumer. By reducing taxes elsewhere, we will ensure that the average Canadian household can reduce its overall tax burden by making economically rational choices, such as improving home insulation, buying a more fuel efficient vehicle and other measures made possible by reduced taxes elsewhere and through “feebate” programmes.

By grasping the nettle of tax shifting, which most economists agree is the most economically rational approach, the Green Party will meet Canada’s 2012 Kyoto target. The other parties have misread the public mood. Canadians are very concerned about the state of the environment, the threat of the climate crisis and the impacts on our children’s future. The notion that any “new” tax will be opposed, even if it is clear that the overall family tax burden will go down, is based on the idea that the Canadian public is not very bright. The Green Party believes the opposite.

6 Mark Jaccard, et al, “The Morning After: Optimal Greenhouse Gas Policies for Canada’s Kyoto Obligations and Beyond.” No.197, March 2004 (C.D.Howe Institute Commentary) ISN 0824-8001



As government, and in opposition, we will explain why it makes sense to end subsidies to the wealthiest companies on earth to make the world’s most profitable product, a barrel of oil; why it makes sense to reduce taxes on things we want, like income and employment, while increasing taxes on things we do not want, like GHG and smog-causing pollution.

• The Green Party will introduce a carbon tax with revenues offset by reductions in other taxes, particularly on payroll and income.

• The Green Party will eliminate subsidies that encourage cheap fossil fuels, such as the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance to the tar sands industry, removing a $1.3 billion-a-year loophole.

• The Green Party will reinstate and expand the Wind Power Production Incentive (initially created in Budget 2001 with $260 million to install 1,000 MW of wind energy and expanded in 2005 with an additional $200 million over five years, and $920 million over 15 years for a total goal of 4,000 MW) and the Renewable Power Production Incentive (created in Budget 2005 with $97 million over 5 years, moving to $886 million over 15 years).

• The Green Party will work with commercial banks to end the stalemate that faces new technologies in the gap between “R and D” and commercialisation. Risk capital to invest in the best technologies for a low carbon future must no longer be impeded by a failure of imagination in the banking community.

• The Green Party will focus on rapid development of bio-fuels, particularly cellulosic ethanol, by promoting commercial scale switch grass operations in the Prairies. Such projects have the added advantage of protecting important habitat for migratory birds.

• The Green Party will end approximately $200 million a year in federal subsidies to the Canadian nuclear industry. No federal funding will flow to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. other than funds required to clean up nuclear contamination, such as at Chalk River, and to find ways to manage the unsolved problem of high-level nuclear waste.

• Other tax shifts to be finalized include removing the tax credit for use of a company car, relaxing tax rules to allow greater numbers of Canadians to work from home and claim tax benefits for use of a home office, eliminating advertising aimed at children as a deductible business expense, and putting a tax on emissions of cancer causing chemicals.

• The Green Party will not support any expansion of tar sands operations until full cost accounting is in place for the costs of water use, loss of higher value opportunities for natural gas, localized air pollution, loss of wilderness, boreal forest and habitat for migratory birds, and GHG emissions. Tar sands producers must assume full responsibility for those emissions by becoming carbon neutral by 2020. The Green Party will explore opportunities for carbon sequestration and the potential to link future tar sands operations to a hydrogen economy.



The Green Party will not rely solely on tax-shifting. While getting the prices right is the single most significant step, regulations and consumer-friendly programmes will also be needed to shift Canadian society to a low-carbon future. We will regulate to improve vehicle fuel economy, improve energy productivity in large appliances and, in cooperation with provinces, improve energy efficiency of residential and commercial buildings.

• Regulating the auto fleet. The Green Party welcomes reports that the Harper government may move in this direction. The government must move quickly by tabling draft regulations. The current memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the car makers and the federal government is geared to reduce GHG by 25% below Business as Usual (calculated at 5.3 megatonnes by 2010). Using CEPA to regulate this reduction is far more likely to succeed than continuing to rely on the voluntary MOU. This is amply demonstrated by the failure of the EU voluntary agreement with automakers. Any promise to crack down on car makers with a deadline later than 2010 is inadequate. Reduced GHG emissions from cars must be extended to include light trucks and SUVs.

• Truck traffic. Diesel from trucks is an acute health threat and contributes to 24% of the GHG from Canada’s transportation sector (see Table 1). The Green Party will extend emission standards to trucks and support this by investing in and improving the Canadian rail freight system to speed the transition of goods traffic from road to rail.

• The Green Party as government will work with provincial governments to ensure that the provinces improve building codes to R2000 (residential) and C2000 (commercial) standards.

• The Green Party will maintain the level of financial support to provincial/territorial GHG reduction plans announced in the 2005 budget, promised to grow to between $2-3 billion over a decade. Provinces/territories will be free to determine the best investment opportunities but must meet GHG reduction targets and agree to regulate critical pieces of a Kyoto plan within their jurisdiction (such as building codes).

• The Green Party will re-instate the EnerGuide for Housing programme.

• The Green Party will expand the Green Municipal Funds (GMF), maintaining a focus on brownfield remediation. The 2005 Budget included a new $300 million for GMF, of which half was designated for brownfield remediation.

• Some refrigerators currently sold in Canada are so inefficient that they are illegal south of the border. The federal government, through Natural Resources Canada, has the authority to regulate the energy efficiency of appliances. The Green Party will introduce appliance standards to ban electricity guzzlers from the marketplace, saving consumers money over the lifetime of their appliance while reducing GHG emissions.

• The Green Party will introduce feebate systems, such as those proposed in the 2005 Federal Budget (Annex 4), for large appliances and car purchases.


Visit us online: www.greenparty.ca 10

• Regulating the largest polluters. The large polluters (labeled “Large Final Emitters” in the previous government’s Kyoto plan) are responsible for nearly half of Canada’s GHG emissions. Through the effective use of a carbon tax, those emissions will decline. To ensure that no portion of society faces an unfair burden, regulations will ensure substantial reductions from the largest polluters. In addition to tax-shifting, this sector will benefit from an Emission Cap and Tradable Permit (ECTP) system. An ECTP system will allow large polluting industries to find their own cost-effective approaches to meet real and measurable targets for emission reduction, beyond those that will occur due to a carbon tax. An ECTP will avoid having to set the carbon tax so high as to be economically dislocating while working aggressively to reduce emissions . The Green Party would not use the flawed and inefficient “intensity target” approach advocated by George W. Bush and proposed by the previous government for Large Final Emitters.

International credits have a role:Any shortfall in meeting our first phase Kyoto target will be made up in international credits from Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Both of these mechanisms within Kyoto have the advantage of assisting other countries, particularly in the developing world, to reorient their economies and energy systems to a low-carbon future. Such credits deliver cost-effective carbon reductions and pave the way for those nations taking on commitments in future Kyoto reductions. CDM credits also have the advantage of including a small surcharge toward an Adaptation Fund for developing countries.

The cost of reducing GHG emissions is often lower in developing countries than in advanced industrialized nations. And because climate changes is a global problem, a tonne of carbon reduced in India or China or Malaysia is just as valuable in protecting Canadians as a tonne reduced in Canada. The atmosphere doesn’t care where the carbon emission reduction takes place; it only matters that it does take place.


Visit us online: www.greenparty.ca 11

2. Adaptation to Climate Change: Develop pro-active adaptation strategies for vulnerable residential areas (floodplains, settlements on perma-frost, etc), and for economic sectors particularly dependent on stable climatic conditions: tourism, agriculture, forestry and fishing.

One of the binding commitments of nations within the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was to prepare adaptation strategies to cope with levels of climatic disruption that are no longer avoidable.

If anything, this commitment has been ignored even more than the obligation to reduce emissions. As a nation with many economic sectors dependent on natural resources, Canada must begin to plan for a changing and destabilized climate. Sectors requiring immediate attention include agriculture, forestry, fishing and tourism. Municipal infrastructure, especially water treatment facilities, must be rebuilt to meet a changing water regime with increased deluge precipitation patterns that will produce more events in which raw sewage will by-pass treatment. Development must be curtailed in areas of high vulnerability – floodplains, permafrost, areas near forests at increased risk of fires, etc.

POLICY COMMITMENT: The Green Party as government will show leadership by developing an adaptation strategy in collaboration with the provincial/territorial governments and municipalities. Failure to act to prevent climatic impacts has already cost the Canadian economy billions of dollars. We will act to reduce emissions and prepare for the “new normal” of a destabilized climate. These are not, as often presented, mutually exclusive goals. We need both and we needed them yesterday.

“We will act to reduce emissions and prepare for the ‘new normal’ of a destabilized climate . . . these are not mutually exclusive goals.”


Visit us online: www.greenparty.ca 1�

3. Air Quality: Establish regulations to reduce exposure to toxic contaminants.

Canada faces a crisis in respiratory diseases, exacerbated by poor air quality. • Three million Canadians, or about 8.4% of the country's population, suffer from asthma. • Health Canada data shows that asthma accounts for about 80% of chronic respiratory disease in this

country.• Asthma killed 287 Canadians in 2003.• Ontarians face a 40% risk of developing asthma by the time they turn 40, according to a report by the

Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES).• An estimated 200,000 new asthma diagnoses will be made each year across Canada. 7

Yet, Canada’s regulation of air quality lags behind other nations. Canada allows sulphur dioxide at concentrations of 115 ppm while the European Union allows 48 and Australia permits 80.

The regulation of air quality is a mixed constitutional responsibility. The provinces have jurisdiction to regulate air quality under sections 92(13) and 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867, dealing with property and civil rights or within responsibility for local and private matters. Federal authority stems primarily from criminal law powers under section 91, while additional authority can be found under jurisdiction for inter-provincial transport and pollution and peace, order and good government.

Some of what the Conservative government has described in media interviews as a new “Clean Air Act” would appear to be problematic on constitutional grounds. Any new law would also impose years of delay, as the Conservative government has foreshadowed years of consultation before any new law is introduced. The strongest and safest way to reduce and eliminate air contaminants is to rely on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).

CEPA’s constitutionality has already been tested and approved in R. v. Hydro Quebec8. So long as future regulations follow Mr. Justice LaForest’s judgment and adhere to the protection of public health implicit in the criminal law, this is the safest and surest course.

7 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060920/asthma_report_060920/20060920?hub=Canada8 [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213

“While a new government may welcome the political boost of a new air quality law, it is unnecessary, potentially costly, will impose years of delay and is likely to create a federal-provincial conflict for no benefit.”



While a new government may welcome the political and media boost of a “new law,” it is unnecessary, potentially costly, will impose years of delay and is likely to create a federal-provincial conflict for no benefit.

Regulating to reduce the precursors of smog (particulates, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide) as well as to reduce serious neuro-toxic mercury contamination is possible within CEPA.

Nevertheless, while regulating to reduce these contaminants is worthwhile, it is essential to note that their presence in the atmosphere is directly related to the burning of fossil fuels. Measures to meet Kyoto targets by reducing reliance on fossil fuels will have important benefits in reducing these contaminants. It is possible that the Harper government may design regulations that reduce smog-causing contaminants without curtailing fossil fuel use. Such a policy is doomed to fail. Individual catalytic converters and scrubbers can reduce contaminants per unit of production, but if the numbers of smokestacks and cars continue to rise, overall air quality will not improve. Further, a failure to confront the climate crisis, directly and soon, will result in more extreme heat conditions. And more 30 degree days means more smog days.

The formula for smog is: heat + pollution = smog.

Canadians will not be tricked into thinking “cleaner air” can be delivered while fossil fuel use continues unabated.

POLICY COMMITMENT: The Green Party as government will regulate to reduce particulates, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury (and as described in section 6, greenhouse gases) within CEPA. No new law is required.



4. Toxic Chemicals: Regulate within the Canadian Environmental Protection Act

The Green Party of Canada congratulates environment minister Rona Ambrose for meeting the legal requirement within the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) to release the list of 4,000 chemicals of concern following the review of 23,000 toxic substances in use, and previously lacking assessment across Canada. The review process took seven years. Now that the Domestic Substances List is complete, it should be made public immediately, combined with an action plan to deal with persistent, bio-accumulative substances.

CEPA is now in the early stages of its legislated five-year review. Industry groups are lobbying the government to water down the term “toxic” in the Act. They are concerned about the “stigma” associated with the term when it is applied to materials they produce. However, “toxic” accurately describes substances that are potentially harmful to human health and the environment and weakening the term sends a signal to the public and to government that taking action to protect Canadians’ health and the environment is not urgent. It is therefore essential that the legal framework of “toxic” substances not be eroded. The definitions within the act must remain unchanged, although the subject heading could be expanded to “Toxic and other harmful substances.”

CEPA should require that the onus be on industry to show that the products they produce are safe, contrary to the current onus on government to demonstrate that they are harmful. An industry onus is a key feature of the emerging REACH system for regulating chemicals in the European Union, expected to become law in early 2007. Europe is the largest chemicals market in the world. There is every reason for Canada to follow their lead.

The Green Party of Canada remains concerned that Canada’s key legislation to protect human health and the environment from threats posed by man-made substances does not include pesticides or radio-nuclides. Now is the time to remedy this omission and amend CEPA to cover the non-commercial aspects of pesticides, allowing the Pest Control Products Act to continue to regulate the registration and use of pesticidal products, but moving the banning of dangerous substances and handling of disposal and spills into CEPA. Similarly, the historic tradition of secrecy surrounding the nuclear industry has kept substances that pose a risk to health and the environment, such as emissions from nuclear power plants, exempt from CEPA regulation. Levels of tritium in Ontario water are sufficiently high to be of concern, yet they fall into a regulatory vacuum. This must be remedied by bringing toxic radio-nuclides under the control of CEPA.

Similarly, harmful substances found in consumer products are not regulated by CEPA. While other laws such as the Hazardous Products Act (HPA) and the Food and Drugs Act (FDA) can sometimes be used to regulate such products, they are inadequate in addressing emerging human health and environmental risks. For example, the HPA bans lead in children’s jewellery but still allows this proven toxin in a wide range of other products. Moreover, the HPA and FDA generally do not deal with substances that pose a threat to humans via the environment, such as perfluorinated compounds and other substances that are persistent and bioaccumulative.

“The Act should put the onus on industry to show that their products are safe, contrary to the current onus on government to demonstrate that they are harmful.”



Finally, despite its stated objective of maintaining an “ecosystem-based approach”, CEPA fails to provide specific protection for Canada’s most significant and vulnerable ecosystems, in particular the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin and the Arctic. The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin is the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem. It is where one third of Canada’s population live and one half of our economic activity is generated. Nearly half of Canada’s air pollution is also generated within this region. Many of these pollutants end up in the high Arctic, poisoning the food system that many Inuit rely on and harming wildlife.

POLICY COMMITMENT: The Green Party as government will amend CEPA to cover non-commercial handling and disposal of pesticides and radio-nuclides. The Green Party will identify substances shown to be significant risk factors in human cancer, immuno-suppression, endocrine disruption, neuro-toxicity and/or mutagenicity. These substances will be regulated within CEPA to restrict use and registration with the goal of reducing and/or eliminating exposure of vulnerable groups within society (pregnant women, the unborn, children, the sick, the poor and the elderly). In addition, emissions of these substances will be subject to a Toxic Tax, offset by reductions elsewhere in the tax system.



5. Water Quality and Quantity: Implement the 1�� Federal Water Policy; pass legislation at the federal level to prohibit bulk water exports

Water. The stuff of life. The lifeblood of the planet. And a major political challenge for the 21st century.

Looking down from space, Canada is clearly among the earth’s water-abundant regions. On the ground, however, it’s a different story. Our water use is geographically concentrated – 60% of our water runs north while over 90% of our population is concentrated along the southern border.

As our population and economy grow, water problems are increasingly common. Some, like Walkerton and Kashechewan, are related to water quality; others, like recent droughts in the Prairies and southern Ontario, are water quantity issues. Some span provincial borders, others national borders. All speak to the need for renewed attention to water policy by the federal government.

The Green Party is committed to a vision of sustainable and healthy communities and sustainable livelihoods in healthy watersheds. The strategies outlined in current Federal Water Policy – tabled in 1987 in response to the Pearse Inquiry – are solid steps toward realizing that vision. These ideas are as relevant today as they were 20 years ago. Action, however, has been sorely lacking.

The federal government must commit to a renewed role in water management – one focused on implementation. Incentives, regulations and programmes must be created – in collaboration with provincial and municipal governments – to enable equitable and efficient use of water by communities, agriculture and industry while sustaining our cultural and ecological heritage.

When it comes to our fresh water, the Green Party’s message is clear: Keep it. Conserve it. Protect it.

Keep it. Water – our Great Lakes and mighty rivers – are central to Canada’s identity. However, pressure is mounting to export fresh water south of the border. Trade agreements such as NAFTA leave us susceptible to losing control over our cultural and ecological heritage.

The Green Party supports current Federal Water Policy – developed under the Mulroney government – which states: “Canada is not a water-rich country. That is why the Government of Canada emphatically opposes large-scale exports of our water. We have another reason for our opposition; the inter-basin diversions necessary for such exports would inflict enormous harm on both the environment and society . . .”

“As stewards of 9% of the world’s fresh water, we are ethically bound to conserve it for this and future generations, yet Canadians are among the world’s most inefficient water users.”



The Green Party is firmly committed to maintaining control of our fresh water and to ensuring that strong, transparent mechanisms are in place to represent and secure our interests in international water sharing agreements. Like former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed, we recognize the need for strong legislation that prohibits bulk water exports and renegotiates trade agreements to exempt bulk water transfers. Therefore, the Green party will introduce legislation at the federal level to ban bulk water exports.

The Green Party supports the extraordinarily prescient obligations of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty and the International Joint Commission (IJC) it created. As government, the Green Party will be prepared to use more of Canada’s powers in referring transboundary water issues to the IJC, as should have been done in the case of Devil’s Lake. The Green Party will support and empower Canadian representatives to the IJC to develop a proactive approach, anticipating disputes and working to find solutions instead of exacerbating conflict.

Conserve it. As stewards of 9% of the world’s renewable water, we are ethically bound to conserve it for this and future generations. Yet Canadians are among the world’s most inefficient users of water. And while most citizens have access to safe water, Health Canada indicates that as many as 85 First Nations communities are under boil-water advisories. Working with – not against – provincial and municipal partners, the federal government must ensure optimal water use efficiency while securing access to safe water for all Canadians.

Doing so will require strategic integration of the proposals outlined in the current federal policy. This includes pricing that reflects a fair value for water and fosters efficient use; regulations that protect and enhance water quality and ensure Canada does not become a dumping ground for water-wasting technologies; and education programmes that develop a water conservation ethic in all Canadians.

Protect it. According to Dr. David Schindler, Canada’s leading aquatic ecologist, “Unless there is a quick reversal in recent trends in water management, fresh water will become Canada’s foremost ecological crisis early this century.”

The Green Party understands that we share the world’s water resources with other species and with future generations. As population and economic activities expand, so too do demands for water. Securing water to protect and enhance aquatic ecosystems – and the ecological services (e.g. fish, storage, waste assimilation) they provide – is a growing challenge. It will require commitment on the part of the federal government to use its powers, including the Fisheries Act and its role in inter-jurisdictional water sharing, to secure water for healthy ecosystems.

It must also be underscored that the biggest threat to the quality and quantity of Canada’s fresh water is posed by the climate crisis. Great Lakes levels will fall, resulting in higher concentrations of toxic chemicals and other pollutants, BC rivers will become over heated preventing salmon spawning, and farmers will face increasing drought. The Athabasca River is already experiencing significant declines in flow due to climatic impacts. Dr. Schindler and W.F. Donahue warn in An impending water crisis in Canada’s western provinces:

We predict that in the near future climate warming, via its effects on glaciers, snow packs and evaporation, will combine with cyclic drought and rapidly increasing human activity in the western prairie provinces to cause a crisis in water quantity and quality with far-reaching implications.9

9 Schindler and Donahue, “An impending water crisis in Canada’s western provinces,” National Academy of Sciences if the USA,PNAS Early Edition, February 25, 2006, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0601568103.



POLICY COMMITMENT: To meet the requirements of sustainable water management – equity, efficiency and ecological integrity – the Green Party as government will commit to strategic implementation of the 1987 Federal Water Policy. Key elements of this implementation plan include:

• Passing federal legislation to prohibit bulk water exports.• Creating regulations and product standards to promote water-efficient technologies.• Securing safe water supplies for all citizens with a focus on First Nations communities.• Enhancing the capacity of federal ministries, departments and agencies to protect and restore the health

of aquatic ecosystems.• Protecting the existing Fisheries Act from planned erosion by the Harper Government and ensuring that

the Fisheries Act remains Canada’s strongest legislation to protection fish habitat and water quality; and• Reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions within the Kyoto framework, while moving rapidly to

deeper reductions after 2012.



6. National Parks: Re-commit to the completion and protection of the National Parks system, including its Marine Parks.

The biodiversity contained in ecosystems and species can only survive where actual areas are set aside for protection of natural ecosystems and their species. Hence, the essential requirement is for extensive parks and other protected areas of land and sea. While the need to protect biodiversity is global, Canada can do its share. National parks and other strongly protected areas (both public and private) are the only known institutional mechanisms for conserving biodiversity where it is actually located.

Every prime minister of Canada for the last 20 years has committed to the completion of the national parks system and the creation of marine protected areas sufficient to protect marine ecosystems – except the current prime minister. The 2005 Budget committed $209 million over five years to capital maintenance and acquisition in existing parks but did not increase funding for the creation of new parks. Key ecological areas are under assault. Unless the government acts soon, areas like the South Okanogan, Canada’s only true desert, wilderness in Labrador or the Flathead in British Columbia will no longer be available for protection. They will be lost due to development.

The UNESCO World Heritage Committee has warned Canada about the dangerous erosion of existing parks designated as World Heritage Sites, particularly Banff, Jasper, Kootenay and Yoho national parks as well as several provincial reserves. The UNESCO committee pointed to the risk of “adverse impacts of the operation of the Cheviot mine on the integrity” of parks, particularly Jasper. UNESCO also warned that Canada is not doing enough to ensure that “various mining, mineral, oil and gas explorations activities” around Nahanni National Park, located in the southwest corner of the Northwest Territories, do not erode the ecological integrity of the park.

The situation on Marine Protected Areas is even worse. While Canada has protected less than 1% of its marine areas, Australia has protected 7.5%.

“Unless the government acts soon, areas like the South Okanogan, Canada’s only true desert, wilderness in Labrador or the Flathead in British Columbia will no longer be available for protection, they will be lost to development.”


Visit us online: www.greenparty.ca �0

POLICY COMMITMENT: The Green Party as government will make completion of a representative network of Canada’s terrestrial and marine ecosystems a priority. A park completion budget of $500 million will be added to existing 2003 and 2005 budget commitments with the goal of completing the National Parks and Marine Protected Areas system.

The Green Party’s short-term objective will be to work with the provinces, municipalities and private landowners to double the total size of protected areas across Canada in the first decade. In terrestrial regions the emphasis will be to expand protected areas in the southern part of the country while in marine ecosystems emphasis will be on Canada’s entire oceanic coast lines out to the 200-mile limit, and sometimes beyond. The Green Party will support the international designation of large marine reserves (free from exploitation) beyond international boundaries and in internationally contested marine areas.

The Green Party accepts Environment Canada’s eco-region framework as the ecological basis for protecting different kinds of biodiversity. The framework recognizes 177 regions. Of these areas, 45 have no protected areas at all while most of the others are represented only by small fragments of the total landscape or seascape. The marine eco-region classification along Canada’s three oceanic coastlines will also be also used to identify areas for protection from exploitation.

Note: This document only deals with the imperative to complete national parks and marine protected areas. The Green Party’s comprehensive position paper on the threat to Canada’s biodiversity will be released in December on the anniversary of the Convention on Biological Diversity coming into force. The reform of Species At Risk legislation and other key initiatives will be covered in that major policy statement.


Visit us online: www.greenparty.ca �1

7. Science: Reverse the “brain drain” in federal scientific capacity.

In the last two decades, a number of factors have conspired to erode the scientific capacity of the federal civil service.

The deep cuts in budgets during former finance minister Paul Martin’s programme review phase coincided with a widespread obsession (within the OECD at least) for “smaller government” and a managerial fetish in the civil service. Many experienced scientists took early retirement on very favourable terms. Managers from other departments, without any policy strength or scientific background, moved into key positions in departments such as Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans.

The inevitable result is that the government now lacks the capacity to understand environmental indicators. The House of Commons Environment Committee noted this weakness in the area of fresh water policy in its fall 2004 report on the proposed Great Lakes Annex Agreement. To learn anything useful about federal water policy, it was necessary to hear from retired Environment Canada personnel. Witnesses from the department currently in those roles were unable to respond to basic questions. A similar problem can be seen in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, where the head of Ocean Act implementation, for example, moved into the ADM level position directly from Natural Resources Canada. It should be noted that some pockets of competence remain. There has been very little erosion of core competence in Environment Canada’s Meteorological Service, where the scientists assessing climate change are found. It is also worth noting that the international trade division and foreign service, in general, while not science-based departments, have been able to avoid the dilution of competence caused by the management fad.

Ottawa mandarins such as Gordon Ritchie and Harry Swain have also decried the shift to a managerial culture, in which policy expertise takes a back seat to generic management experience.10 The professional union representing civil servants has also noted that the careerist ambitions of the new civil service culture do not serve the public interest as well as an esprit de corps and expertise within scientifically grounded departments.

While the Green Party is not in favour of big government for its own sake, throwing away all that expertise is a huge risk at a time when the policy questions facing government are often complex, involve areas of scientific uncertainty and require grounding in basic impartial science.

It is a false economy to allow government policy to be starved of solid, in-house scientific expertise. The Green Party notes another economic reality of operating with a “leaner” civil service. Much of the work ends up being “out-sourced” at a higher cost than if the government had its own scientific capacity.

10 See, for example, Ian D. Clark and Harry Swain, “Distinguishing between the real and the surreal in management reform,” Journal of Canadian Public Administration, Volume 48, No. 4, 2006.

“It is a false economy to allow government policy to be starved of solid, in-house scientific expertise.”


Visit us online: www.greenparty.ca ��

POLICY COMMITMENT: The Green Party as government will direct the Clerk of the Privy Council to reform the civil service to restore the primacy of core competence over managerial experience. The Green Party will augment the federal budget to provide resources to attract competent scientific capacity to Environment Canada, Health Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Each department will receive a $5 million annual boost, for a total increase of a modest $15 million to the federal budget.

The Green Party will restore the terminated biodiversity (taxonomic/ecological) related research in forestry, agriculture and fisheries. This has been severely scaled back over the past 40 years with dozens of research programmes being terminated and research scientist positions transferred to administration, management and the support of agri-business. Funding will come from the termination of government subsidies to industrial fisheries, industrial forestry, agri-business and the pesticide industries. All GMO related research (except medically required) into trees, fish and farm plants and animals will be terminated.

One basic aim will be to undertake and complete inventories of species in all groups identified in Appendix 1 of the Canada Country Study (1995). The Green Party will expand monitoring of biodiversity values to include species of representative sites on farms and forests soil, rangeland, and on natural areas and fishing grounds. We will terminate all Canadian research that destroys the sustainability and productivity of natural systems.


Visit us online: www.greenparty.ca ��

Conclusion:

The Green Party of Canada offers these proposals and urges other parties to make use of them. The Green Party of Canada intends to be a force in the House of Commons with elected members following the next federal election. In the meantime, there is no time to waste in taking action on these critical issues.

Acknowledgements:

This report was prepared by a Green Party team including Elizabeth May, David Chernushenko, Eric Walton, Van Ferrier, Tony Maas, Ted Mosquin and Camille Labchuk. Our thanks to the Pembina Institute for the table on P.5.

green party green plan: our greenprint for the future

Documents

green party green plan

mulroney green plan

green party of canada

previous green plan

federal governments

gp2green plangreen party

canadian government

mulroney government